Two More Things People Think But Won't Say

[David Sklansky]

1. Once it was shown that Iraq had no WMDs and Sadam wasn't helping terrorists, we don't care anymore. The fact that Sadam was a ruthless dictator who supressed rights and killed tens of thosands of innocents doesn't begin to make spending billions and losing thousands of Americans worth it. The issue isn't that we don't think the US should be the world's policeman imposing our values on others. That's actually fine. As long as we can pull that off cheaply. But if it isn't cheap, who cares about the plight of the Iraqi's?

2. As long as even a small fraction of woman suffer PMS to the point where it occasionaly affects their decisions, that one fact is highly relevant as far as voting for a woman president is concerned. At least until she is of the age that doctors agree the syndrome no longer occurs. If after taking the risk into account, someone wants to vote for her anyway, because she is otherwise so good, or the opponent is so bad, fine. But if the decison is close, no one can be faulted for voting against the woman even if the great majority are not affected by PMS. That might not be fair to woman in general but as a voter with kids who doesn't want an increased risk of war,it is perfectly fine for me to change my vote if a statistical, "unfair" fact is good reason to do so.

Again, how come nobody says this stuff?

[eurythmech]

2.I know you're impaired a la Americana, but you cannot be serious. Men are impaired because of their libido then?

[PairTheBoard]

I think you have the makings of a stand-up comedian. Or maybe a profesional wrestler. Or both.

PairTheBoard

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have the makings of a stand-up comedian.

[/ QUOTE ]

with good delivery, this would be great material

[samster]

[1] For the same reason people spend $50k at a club in a single night or order $1,500 shots of whiskey. Because they can.

[2] As long as a woman can initiate a war over the course of three days, she can probably reverse the course of action over the next three weeks.

Am I being leveled?

[aejones]

I don't know David, but your point on number two is certainly taken very well. This is often overlooked and swept under the covers.

[gumpzilla]

There's a lot of anecdotal claims about women being less violent on average. So is the expected violence lower? Seems like that would have to be the big consideration.

Also, I bet men with impotence are grouchy. I suppose we better stop electing men.

[Eponymous]

How about the empiracal evidence to the contrary of #2? Did Margaret Thatcher start any wars because of PMS? Or maybe she was old enough that it didn't occur anymore. Or maybe the sample size of women leaders is too small. Seems to me that a woman president with PMS could yell at her staff, but it's a big stretch to say she's going to hit the nuclear button or anything like that.

[TheFaucet]

You know what's another thing people think but never say? There is no dichotomy between homosexuality and a heterosexuality- in fact they are both artificial constructs.

[David Sklansky]

Again people are missing my point. Which is that IF a certain small percentage of women are SERIOUSLY affected by PMS, (much more so than men might be by their own unique problems) it is not wrong to factor that small probability into the equation even if the great majority of woman are UNFAIRLY hurt by such probabalistic calculations.